Wildflower plantings on fruit farms provide pollen resources and increase nesting by stem nesting bees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wildflower plantings on farms have been shown to attract foraging wild bees, however, whether these added floral resources increase nesting densities of bees remains largely untested. We placed nest boxes containing natural reeds at 20 fruit farms in Michigan. We then compared nesting densities between farms with and without wildflower plantings and analysed nest provisions to evaluate use of wildflower plantings for brood provisioning. We found significantly greater nesting at farms with wildflower plantings, with only one out of 236 completed nests at a farm without a planting. The majority of nests were completed by Megachile pugnata , with a portion of nests completed by Osmia caerulescens . We found that nesting bees collected pollen from only a subset of the available flowers in the wildflower plantings, with a strong preference for Centaurea maculosa , and Rudbeckia type pollens. While these species were found growing in the plantings, only Rudbeckia type species were seeded in the plantings. This study provides evidence that wildflower plantings (though not only seeded species) are filling a critical resource gap for stem‐nesting bees in agricultural landscapes and likely support local populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".